Coast Erosion Work

HC Deb 16 April 1975 vol 890 cc438-40

22. Mr. Adley

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the present allocation of cost-sharing of work on coastal erosion as between his Department and the local authorities; and if he will consider accepting that the total expenditure thereon be now borne by his Department.

Mr. Denis Howell

The present allocation of costs between my Department and local authorities in respect of works of coast protection varies to take account of the local circumstances of each case. I do not consider that it would be appropriate for the whole of these costs to be borne by the central Government.

Mr. Adley

Is the Minister aware that in some local authority areas such as mine the ratepayers are called upon continually to bear heavy burdens in places such as Highcliffe and Barton-on-Sea, which are not seaside resorts? If the principle is established, for instance, that the benefits from North Sea oil should accrue to the nation as a whole, is it not equally fair that the cost of coast erosion should be borne by the nation as a whole?

Mr. Howell

There have been 16 schemes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency since 1966 costing £1,240,000, 56 per cent. of the cost of which was borne by the Government. Therefore, as the Government are paying more than half the cost, they are bearing their fair share. Yesterday the Opposition demanded that the Government should cut public expenditure. This is an odd way for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that they should do so.

Mr. Stephen Ross

Does the Minister accept that many local authorities in the Solent area consider that excessive dredging in that area is having disastrous effects on coastal erosion, and that his Department could well spend time finding out exactly what is the relationship between dredging and coast erosion?

Mr. Howell

I should need notice to answer that question in detail. However, I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has suggested and write to him.

Mr. Ronald Atkins

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that a sufficient share of the cost is borne by the property owners whose property is saved, especially bearing in mind the fact that so much property has been built on the coast to the detriment of the environment?

Mr. Howell

I think it is true that there has been considerable development in coastal areas. The merit of this scheme is that it is designed to acknowledge the situation where large numbers of people who do not live on the coast enjoy opportunities for pleasant holidays. Therefore, there should be a mixture of Government and local government money. That seems to me to be the right principle.

Mr. Crouch

Will the Minister take into account the fact that there are parts of the country where there is a serious danger to life and to health? Between Whitstabe and Herne Bay there are several hundred houses which in the circumstances of a surge in the North Sea combined with wind from a certain direction would be flooded to a depth of three or four feet. This causes great concern in the area. There is also great concern at the high cost which will have to be borne locally. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the question of dealing with the problem nationally so that the cost of protecting life is not borne wholly by the local people.

Mr. Howell

I wish that hon. Gentlemen would not be as irresponsible as to demand cuts in public expenditure one day and to request greater public expenditure the next. The Opposition cannot get away from the fact that that is what they are asking. Under the present scheme, whereby there is a mixture of dealing with each case on its merits while taking into account special factors, such as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is possible to obtain Government grants of up to 79 per cent. for coastal schemes. In the circumstances that is as generous as we can expect the Government to be at present.